Talk:Fredrick D. Scott

Requested changes...
I am proposing proposing an article-wide restructuring of the narrative in order to clear up existing defamatory and damaging statements, which are backed by broken citations in some cases. The current narrative is not only unfair, unjust, and inaccurate to the subject, they are inflammatory and inappropriate. The subject is currently executing a press tour and the current narrative on his article is not reflective of the truth thusly reflecting on Wikipedia's credibility. Therefore I request the article be changed to the following: User:PMStarAbaco/sandbox as I am an official representative of the subject in a Public Relations capacity I am declaring COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PMStarAbaco (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A quick read of the proposed draft shows that it waters down the fraud section and replaces it with a largely-unsourced controversies section. —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * C.Fred With all due respect I disagree with your conclusion - aside from the lack of citations, which I agree to bolster. I believe Wikipedia is better than the National Enquirer or the Daily Mail, which would write it in its current form; as rumor, disparaging, and sensational - it sounds exactly what those two publications would print. There is very little academic tone. Additionally, I don't believe the draft is watered down, but actually written in the correct form of any biography of a living person. I suggest it should be rewritten under the auspices of WP:5P5 and possibly, WP:IAR, to maintain the idea of “improving or maintaining Wikipedia” and its credibility. This situation is not my opinion, but it is factual that the current narrative is inaccurate, and possibly a potential liability to Wikipedia as it stands. If there is compromise I would appreciate your suggestions. Thank you for your assistance. PMStarAbaco (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I must agree with C.Fred; the text tries to whitewash away the fraud section (making guesses or suggesting motives, or trying to hide it behind a technicality such as "never indicted by a jury" as to why there was a plea deal is unacceptable per WP:OR). I know you're just doing your job as that's what PR does, but Wikipedia is not a publics relations company, we report things neutrally as given in independent, reliable sources, especially in controversial matters involving living persons (although the fact that he was sentenced etc... is clearly a non-controversial fact: you can't say "it didn't happen"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * RandomCanadian and C.Fred is there any way we can compromise here? The subject is willing to keep all the narrative in the article intact, we are just asking to have a fair and unbiased introduction. I don't see how there can be an objection to that...it's not a police report. Thank you PMStarAbaco (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've re-ordered the lead a bit. As a reminder, our only concern is encyclopedic content: so long no laws are broken (and here, although "convicted fraudster" might be a harsh way to start it, it is a fact, so no worries about libel or defamation), nobody owns an article (not any editor, and not even its subject in the case its a biography). What'd you think? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  21:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have changed the wording from "convicted of" to "pleaded guilty to". In finding a source for the sentencing, it showed a plea, not a conviction.
 * The introduction does look fair and unbiased. The subject is most notable for the fraud scheme he pleaded guilty to. —C.Fred (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)